Hayes v. State of Washington, Department of Corrections et al

Filing 12

ORDER that Plaintiff's 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Donald Hayes, Prisoner ID: 766385)(CMG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 DONALD C HAYES, 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05095-BHS-DWC ORDER ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DAN PACHOLKE, JANE DOES, JOHN DOES, ELIZABETH SUITER, JEFFERY UTTECHT, SARA SMITH, DAVIS, REYES, EDWARDS, 16 Defendants. 17 18 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate 19 Judge David W. Christel. Currently pending in this action is Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel (“Motion”). Dkt. 11. No constitutional right to appointed counsel 21 exists in a § 1983 action. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see United 22 States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of 23 counsel under this section is discretionary, not mandatory”). However, in “exceptional 24 ORDER ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 1 1 circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th 3 Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). To decide whether 4 exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the 5 merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 6 of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) 7 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts 8 showing he has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issues involved and an inadequate 9 ability to articulate the factual basis of his claims. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 10 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 11 In Plaintiff’s Motion, he states he is unable to afford counsel and his incarceration limits 12 his ability to litigate this action. Dkt. 11. Plaintiff has not shown, nor does the Court find, this 13 case involves complex facts or law. Plaintiff has also not shown an inability to articulate the 14 factual basis of his claims in a fashion understandable to the Court or shown he is likely to 15 succeed on the merits of his case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied without prejudice. 16 Dated this 23rd day of March, 2016. A 17 18 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?